Campag Centaur 2010 Chainset

100%

Hi,

Intending to purchase a new chainset and having been reading the details on the Campagnolo website on the various groupsets, it seems to me that the 10 speed Centaur stuff (particularly the chainset) is more or less the old 10 speed Record? Although seems to be slightly heavier, I can't acutally work out any difference. Even uses the Record BB cups.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Steve

redddraggon

Carbon Centaur chainset has crummy chainrings, nothing at all like the 10spd Record chainrings.

rolf_f

redddraggon wrote:

crummy

Is that a technical term? Or do you mean they are made out of old biscuits?

2alexcoo

Go old school for quality - new 2006 Record cranks are still available on Ebay for £60 delivered. Worth buying just for the chainrings!

on-yer-bike

The BB cups are standard on all the ultra torque chainsets except the Super Record ones are black. I had 2009 Centaur i now have record albeit 11 speed.

The Centaur shifters seem the same, the 09 chain rings and cassette are inferior. The front mech is poor. Rear mech is OK just heavier. Brakes are OK, identical to Chorus whereas Record brakes are black and the front brake has a bearing in it. The first batch of Centaur shifters were inferior because the right shifter had no bearing in it but that has been changed. The Centaur cranks are a bit heavier and a different shape but seem fine. I regret buying Record because I now realise that Chorus is very nearly the same but £400.00 cheaper. In fact I would prefer the Chorus front mech because it isn't carbon and only 1 gram heavier. There is really no room for Record in the current line up.

redddraggon

Rolf F wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

crummy

Is that a technical term? Or do you mean they are made out of old biscuits?

They might be a bit better if they were made of old biscuits, they seem to be made of stale cheese.

what brakes

on-yer-bike wrote:

The BB cups are standard on all the ultra torque chainsets except the Super Record ones are black. I had 2009 Centaur i now have record albeit 11 speed.

The Centaur shifters seem the same, the 09 chain rings and cassette are inferior. The front mech is poor. Rear mech is OK just heavier. Brakes are OK, identical to Chorus whereas Record brakes are black and the front brake has a bearing in it. The first batch of Centaur shifters were inferior because the right shifter had no bearing in it but that has been changed. The Centaur cranks are a bit heavier and a different shape but seem fine. I regret buying Record because I now realise that Chorus is very nearly the same but £400.00 cheaper. In fact I would prefer the Chorus front mech because it isn't carbon and only 1 gram heavier. There is really no room for Record in the current line up.

This is why i have opted for Chorus! i had the carbon chorus back in 03 very smooth shifting then so the newest version must be better! just gotta wait for it to turn up!
Just couldnt really see any advantage in the record stuff and centaur uses steel for the cassette too.

rolf_f

redddraggon wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

crummy

Is that a technical term? Or do you mean they are made out of old biscuits?

They might be a bit better if they were made of old biscuits, they seem to be made of stale cheese.

I still don't know what that means. People here will complain about something for being 5 grammes too heavy - eg any mention of Campag Neutrons, everyone says get the Elite even though the weight difference is not great and there seems to be some concensus that you can't really tell the difference between those and the standard ones. In the real world, what is wrong with Centaur chainrings?

redddraggon

Anodising flakes off, and they bend far too easily.

crimsondynamo

This is all a bit disappointing, I've just ordered a centaur gruppo (alloy crankset). I agonised for ages between Centaur and 6700 which was nigh on the same price. Have I made a big mistake?

on-yer-bike

what brakes wrote:

on-yer-bike wrote:

The BB cups are standard on all the ultra torque chainsets except the Super Record ones are black. I had 2009 Centaur i now have record albeit 11 speed.

The Centaur shifters seem the same, the 09 chain rings and cassette are inferior. The front mech is poor. Rear mech is OK just heavier. Brakes are OK, identical to Chorus whereas Record brakes are black and the front brake has a bearing in it. The first batch of Centaur shifters were inferior because the right shifter had no bearing in it but that has been changed. The Centaur cranks are a bit heavier and a different shape but seem fine. I regret buying Record because I now realise that Chorus is very nearly the same but £400.00 cheaper. In fact I would prefer the Chorus front mech because it isn't carbon and only 1 gram heavier. There is really no room for Record in the current line up.

This is why i have opted for Chorus! i had the carbon chorus back in 03 very smooth shifting then so the newest version must be better! just gotta wait for it to turn up!
Just couldnt really see any advantage in the record stuff and centaur uses steel for the cassette too.

I bet you were slightly doubtful that you had made the right decision until you read that! You must ride for San Fairy Ann.

100%

Cheers for the replies - I thought the chainrings would be different but difficult to tell when comparing 2008 & 2010 catalogues - the descrption is near identical.

I've seen 2006 Record about - I think it's square taper rather than UT, which sounds a little more difficult to fit?

Cheers,
Steve

Velonutter

UT is better than square taper, square taper is a piece of pish to fit though as is UT.

I run record on my best bike and Chorus/Centaur/Record on my trainer and Centaur/Veloce on my turbo bike, apart from weight I have found very little difference that will give you cause for concern.

After a 1000 miles on my trainer with a Centaur Chainset, they have not bent, discoloured, flaked or developed any faults, in fact none of my Campag stuff has, so stop worrying and enjoy your riding.

crimsondynamo

After a 1000 miles on my trainer with a Centaur Chainset, they have not bent, discoloured, flaked or developed any faults,

But surely it's not been subjected to the elements if that's the case?

giant_man

redddraggon wrote:

Anodising flakes off, and they bend far too easily.

Says he who uses Sram ...... cough :?

redddraggon

giant mancp wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Anodising flakes off, and they bend far too easily.

Says he who uses Sram ...... cough :?

huh?

Velonutter

crimsondynamo wrote:

After a 1000 miles on my trainer with a Centaur Chainset, they have not bent, discoloured, flaked or developed any faults,

But surely it's not been subjected to the elements if that's the case?

Sorry didn't make it clear, my trainer is my winter bike, my turbo bike is for indoors.

So yes my centaur has been subjected to some horrible weather.

redddraggon

Slow-N-Old wrote:

crimsondynamo wrote:

After a 1000 miles on my trainer with a Centaur Chainset, they have not bent, discoloured, flaked or developed any faults,

But surely it's not been subjected to the elements if that's the case?

Sorry didn't make it clear, my trainer is my winter bike, my turbo bike is for indoors.

So yes my centaur has been subjected to some horrible weather.

The Alloy centaur chainsets used to have decent (CNCed?) chainrings, I don't know whether they still do, but the carbon chainset used have anodised rings. I am talking specifically about the chainrings on the carbon c/set.

nickwill

Nothing wrong with Centaur chainrings. I got 12,000 miles plus out of my last ones!

redddraggon

Nickwill wrote:

Nothing wrong with Centaur chainrings. I got 12,000 miles plus out of my last ones!

which ones were they though?

Because there were obviously short comings with the chainrings I had.

nickwill

redddraggon wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

Nothing wrong with Centaur chainrings. I got 12,000 miles plus out of my last ones!

which ones were they though?

Because there were obviously short comings with the chainrings I had.

They were 2006 vintage. They were replaced at the end of 2008. My Summer bike has now done about 4000 miles on the replacements and there is no sign of wear. I do replace chains on a very regular basis though, so that might have something to do with it. I have heard that the Chorus ones are better!

redddraggon

Nickwill wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

Nothing wrong with Centaur chainrings. I got 12,000 miles plus out of my last ones!

which ones were they though?

Because there were obviously short comings with the chainrings I had.

They were 2006 vintage. They were replaced at the end of 2008. My Summer bike has now done about 4000 miles on the replacements and there is no sign of wear. I do replace chains on a very regular basis though, so that might have something to do with it. I have heard that the Chorus ones are better!

That's it then. I have a 2005 or 2006 (?) square taper Centaur Chainset which has really nice chainrings, but the chainrings on the 2008 UT Carbon were pants. The strange thing though, is that the cheaper UT alloy version had the nice rings, whereas the more expensive chainset had the shoddy chainring.

STEFANOS4784

redddraggon wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

crummy

Is that a technical term? Or do you mean they are made out of old biscuits?

They might be a bit better if they were made of old biscuits, they seem to be made of stale cheese.

Cheesy rings? There's a bad joke in there somewhere.

Wappygixer

I've got a full 2009/10 Centaur groupset and I have no issues with it.
The brakes work very well.
Gears shift smoothly
No flaking from the rings
I wouldn't spend the extra on Record or Chorus